DOCSLIB.ORG

The Worldview Chart, Level 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Worldview Chart, Level 3 The Barrett nomination Blitz, Part 2 Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. Pres., Blackstone Institute; National Chrm., Eagle Forum’s Court Watch October 2020 [NOTE: This Blitz proposes four “Action Axioms” – principles of action needed to secure the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, with explanations and arguments supporting each Axiom included in the analysis] AXIOM #2: BARRETT: A TRUE CONSTITUTIONALIST Action Axiom #2: We can advance the confirmation efforts of Judge Amy Coney Barrett most effectively and efficiently by demonstrating that her Senate hearings strengthened the picture of her as brilliant and articulate constitutionalist. Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s recent marathon interrogation by the Senate judiciary Committee consistently revealed her as a brilliant and articulate constitutionalist. Simultaneously, her Democrat opponents gave a sad performance as “Reconstructionists” (Humanists), whose questions and pontifications wandered all over the field of public policy – seldom focusing on issues truly relevant to a Supreme Justice’s confirmation hearings. “Constitutionalist” and “reconstructionist” are terms applicable to one’s view of the Constitution, understood within the entire worldview of that individual (i.e., Judeo-Christian worldview v. Humanistic worldview). As we suggested in our recent discussion of Axiom #1, “the Constitution” occupies Level 3 of our Worldview Chart. According to that illustration, what, then, are the positions of Amy Coney Barrett as a scholar and judge so far in her career that characterize her as a constitutionalist? Figure 2: The Worldview Chart, Level 3 Taken from “Blackstone’s Worldview Blitz,” Copyright © 2020 by V. C. Armstrong In the Committee hearings, the Democrats’ main questions that even remotely related to Barrett’s views of the Constitution relentlessly pounded her to reveal her views on “precedent,” but with the blatantly obvious underlying purpose of eliciting her answers on reversing Roe v. Wade. The term most frequently used was “precedent”- the label for Anglo-American law’s adherence to “stare decisis” (“let the decision stand”) – which requires that cases today be decided in accordance with past cases of a similar nature (such past cases constituting “precedents” for today). But what does “precedent” REALLY mean? Several truths are central. • The principle of precedent is moored in the English Common Law tradition. But there are some vital differences between the American and British systems. England does not have, and never has had, a single supreme document as its “Constitution.” The U.S. has always had such an organic law. And it is our Constitution which is the ultimate precedent in America – the ultimate standard against which all law must be measured, including decisions of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. A genuine constitutionalist understands this fundamental fact and the necessity of evaluating current court decisions, even ones of long-standing (“settled law”), in the light of the Constitution properly interpreted – not wrongly interpreted, as was Roe. Indeed, a “precedent” (court decision) violative of the Constitution can be argued to not be truly “law” in the first place. • The age of a court decision is not necessarily an indicator of its constitutional quality (its legitimacy) any more than the age of a human being is an indicator of the quality of that person’s life. An often-cited example of this fact is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which created the “separate but equal doctrine” of race relations. Fifty-eight years later, Plessy was overturned by the Court in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954), which threw out school segregation. However long a “precedent” has existed, it should be eliminated if it violates the Constitution. • Indeed, numerous court decisions/doctrines and other governmental actions have been overturned by recent Courts. Constitutional scholar, Prof. David O’Brien, reports the following: The Warren Court overturned 236 acts (including 45 Supreme Court decisions); The Burger Court overturned 293 acts (including 52 high court rulings), and the Rehnquist Court overturned 134 actions between 1986 and 1998 (including 30 decisions of the Supremes). And SCOTUSblog reports that between the 2007 and 2019 terms of the Court (The Roberts Court) there were opinions released in 993 case, with 696 reversals of lower courts (70.1%). “Precedent” obviously has been no barrier to modern Supreme Court decision-making, especially when applying precedent has produced liberal policies as a consequence. • Even British jurists recognize the limits of precedent in their system. The high-ranking British judge, Alfred Lord Denning, argued in 1959 that, “If lawyers hold to their precedents too closely, forgetful of the fundamental principles of truth and justice which they should serve, they may find the whole edifice comes tumbling around them.” Constitutional/judicial policies which are not based on these facts move America farther in the dangerous direction of becoming a system of judicial supremacy, not constitutional supremacy. Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s past record and Senate hearings strongly indicate that she clearly understands these facts and is committed to the Constitutionalist/Judeo-Christian position – the worldview foundation upon which the Constitution was built and the only one from which it can continue to guide our nation’s legal system and culture to health and prosperity. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2007 Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Devins, Neal, "Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court" (2007). Faculty Publications. 346. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/346 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CONSTITUTIONAL A VOIDANCE AND THE ROBERTS COURT Neal Devins • This essay will extend Phil Frickey's argument about the Warren Court's constitutional avoidance to the Roberts Court. My concern is whether the conditions which supported constitutional avoidance by the Warren Court support constitutional avoidance by today's Court. For reasons I will soon detail, the Roberts Court faces a far different Congress than the Warren Court and, as such, need not make extensive use of constitutional avoidance. In Getting from Joe to Gene (McCarthy), Phil Frickey argues that the Warren Court avoided serious conflict with Congress in the late 1950s by exercising subconstitutional avoidance. 1 In other words, the Court sought to avoid congressional backlash by refraining from declaring statutes unconstitutional. Instead, the Court sought to invalidate statutes or congressional actions based on technicalities. If Congress disagreed with the results reached by the Court, lawmakers could have taken legislative action to remedy the problem. This practice allowed the Court to maintain an opening through which it could backtrack and decide similar cases differently without reversing a constitutional decision. In understanding the relevance of Frickey's argument to today's Court, it is useful to compare Court-Congress relations during the Warren Court of the late 1950s to those during the final years of the Rehnquist Court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice, 50 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 50 | Issue 1 Article 4 Winter 1-1-1993 The aW rren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice Morton J. Horwitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Morton J. Horwitz, The Warren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice, 50 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 5 (1993), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol50/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WARREN COURT AND THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE MORTON J. HoRwiTz* From 1953, when Earl Warren became Chief Justice, to 1969, when Earl Warren stepped down as Chief Justice, a constitutional revolution occurred. Constitutional revolutions are rare in American history. Indeed, the only constitutional revolution prior to the Warren Court was the New Deal Revolution of 1937, which fundamentally altered the relationship between the federal government and the states and between the government and the economy. Prior to 1937, there had been great continuity in American constitutional history. The first sharp break occurred in 1937 with the New Deal Court. The second sharp break took place between 1953 and 1969 with the Warren Court. Whether we will experience a comparable turn after 1969 remains to be seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Earl Warren: a Political Biography, by Leo Katcher; Warren: the Man, the Court, the Era, by John Weaver
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 43 Issue 3 Article 14 Spring 1968 Earl Warren: A Political Biography, by Leo Katcher; Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era, by John Weaver William F. Swindler College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Swindler, William F. (1968) "Earl Warren: A Political Biography, by Leo Katcher; Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era, by John Weaver," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 43 : Iss. 3 , Article 14. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol43/iss3/14 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEWS EARL WARREN: A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY. By Leo Katcher. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Pp. i, 502. $8.50. WARREN: THEi MAN, THE COURT, THE ERA. By John D. Weaver. Boston: Little. Brown & Co., 1967. Pp. 406. $7.95. Anyone interested in collecting a bookshelf of serious reading on the various Chief Justices of the United States is struck at the outset by the relative paucity of materials available. Among the studies of the Chief Justices of the twentieth century there is King's Melville Weston, Fuller,' which, while not definitive, is reliable and adequate enough to have merited reprinting in the excellent paperback series being edited by Professor Philip Kurland of the University of Chicago.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment Tests from the Burger Court: Will They Be Flipped?
    FIRST AMENDMENT TESTS FROM THE BURGER COURT: WILL THEY BE FLIPPED? David L. Hudson, Jr. † and Emily H. Harvey †† I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 52 II. THE LEMON TEST ..................................................................... 53 III. THE MILLER TEST .................................................................... 58 IV. THE CENTRAL HUDSON TEST ..................................................... 63 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 66 I. INTRODUCTION When scholars speak of the Burger Court, they often mention the curtailing of individual rights in the criminal justice arena, 1 federalism decisions, 2 its “rootless activism,” 3 a failure in equal † David L. Hudson, Jr., is a Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Newseum Institute First Amendment Fellow. He teaches at the Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. He would like to thank his co-author Emily Harvey, the student editors of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review , and Azhar Majeed of FIRE. †† Emily H. Harvey is the senior judicial law clerk for the Hon. Frank G. Clement, Jr., of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 1. See Yale Kamisar, The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective , 31 TULSA L.J. 1, 14, 44 (1995); Steven D. Clymer, Note, Warrantless Vehicle Searches and the Fourth Amendment: The Burger Court Attacks the Exclusionary Rule , 68 CORNELL L. REV . 105, 129, 141, 144–45 (1982). 2. See David Scott Louk, Note, Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court , 125 YALE L.J. 682, 686–87, 694, 710, 724–25 (2016); Lea Brilmayer & Ronald D. Lee, State Sovereignty and the Two Faces of Federalism: A Comparative Study of Federal Jurisdiction and the Conflict of Laws , 60 NOTRE DAME L.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations with Bill Kristol
    Conversations with Bill Kristol Guest: Adam J. White Research Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Executive Director, George Mason Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center Taped September 11, 2019 Table of Contents I. On the Supreme Court Today (0:15 – 44:19) II: The Conservative Legal Movement (44:19 – 1:21:17) I. On the Supreme Court Today (0:15 – 44:19) KRISTOL: Hi, I’m Bill Kristol. Welcome to CONVERSATIONS. I’m joined by my friend, Adam White, who has recently moved from The Hoover Institution to The American Enterprise Institute, where you’re – what’s your distinguished title there? Visiting? Resident Scholar? WHITE: Resident Scholar. KRISTOL: Did you have the same high title at Hoover, or was it just a visiting scholar? You were a resident scholar there. [Laughter] WHITE: I felt appreciated at Hoover too. KRISTOL: That’s good, yes. Anyway AEI has a new program in Social, Cultural and Constitutional Studies, which is great and you’re going to be a key part of that. You’ve obviously been a very – a lawyer and a commentator on all matters legal, judicial, the courts and the administrative state for The Weekly Standard and many other journals. And we had a conversation previously about the courts and the administrative state, before the Trump administration began I guess, I think – right? WHITE: Yeah. KRISTOL: But today we’re going to talk about the Judiciary. Kind of an important topic, a key talking point of Trump supporters, and maybe legitimately so. And I guess I’d like to begin with sort of 30,000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and the Roberts Court
    Property and the Roberts Court John G. Sprankling I. INTRODUCTION How do property owners fare before the Roberts Court? Quite well. Owners prevail in 86% of civil property-related disputes with government entities.1 But this statistic does not tell the whole story. This Article demonstrates that under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts the Court has expanded the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to owners to a greater extent than any prior Court. It analyzes the key trends in the Court’s jurisprudence that will shape its decisions on property issues in future decades. Almost 100 years ago, Justice Holmes remarked that government regulation of property which went “too far” would be unconstitutional; yet the precise line between permissible and impermissible action has never been drawn.2 The issue has generated debate through much of American history, particularly in recent decades as the influence of conservative ideology on the Supreme Court has expanded. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts were broadly viewed as more sympathetic to private property than the Warren Court had been. However, the most controversial anti-owner decision of the modern era, Kelo v. City of New London,3 was decided in the final year of the Rehnquist Court. In Kelo, the Court held that the city was empowered to condemn owner-occupied homes and transfer them to private developers as part of an economic redevelopment project4―a ruling that ignited a firestorm of protest across the nation. In his confirmation hearings to serve as Chief Justice, John Roberts pledged to act as an “umpire” on the Court, a person with “no agenda” Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Decision-Making and Justiciability
    Deciding to Not Decide: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Politics of Secondary Access on the U.S. Supreme Court A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Andrew Povtak May 2011 Dissertation written by Andrew Povtak B.A., Case Western Reserve University, 2000 J.D., Cleveland State University, 2004 Approved by _____________________________, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Christopher Banks _____________________________, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Ryan Claassen _____________________________, Mark Colvin _____________________________, Elizabeth Smith-Pryor _____________________________, Graduate Faculty Representative Stephen Webster Accepted by ______________________________, Chair, Department of Political Science Steven Hook ______________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences John R.D. Stalvey ii Table of Contents List of Tables…………………………………………………………………...iv Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………v Chapter 1 – Introduction………………………………………………………1 I. An Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court………………………...3 II. Jurisdictional and Procedural Doctrines…………………………8 III. The Elements of Justiciability: Standing, Timing, and Political Question…………………………………………11 IV. Justiciability Issues: Legal and Political Science Research…..18 V. Data and Methods………………………………………………....28 VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………41 Chapter 2 – Assessing the Attitudinal and Legal Models…………………42 I. Literature Review: Models of Individual Justice Voting
    [Show full text]
  • The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: a Quarter-Century Retrospective*
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 1995 The aW rren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective Yale Kamisar University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/276 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Kamisar, Yale. "The aW rren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective." Tulsa L. J. 31, no. 1 (1995): 1-55. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 31 Fall 1995 Number 1 THE WARREN COURT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE: A QUARTER-CENTURY RETROSPECTIVE* Yale Kamisart THE CLOSING YEARS OF THE WARREN COURT ERA ........... 3 THE RELEVANCE OF THE STRUGGLE FOR CIvIL RIGHTS ....... 6 CRITICISM OF MIRANDA - FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS ...... 8 How DID MRANDA FARE IN THE POST-WARREN COURT ERA ? ................................................... 13 The Impeachment Cases ................................... 13 What is "Interrogation"Within the Meaning of Miranda?.. 14 The Edwards Case: A Victory for Miranda in the Post- Warren Court Era ....................................... 15 The Weaknesses in the Edwards Rule ...................... 17 What Does it Mean to Say That the Miranda Rules Are Merely "Prophylactic"? ................................. 19 Why the Initial Hostility to Miranda Has Dissipated ......
    [Show full text]
  • The Warren Court and American Federalism: a Preliminary Appraisal
    THE WARREN COURT AND AMERICAN FEDERALISM-A PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL STANLEY H. FRIEDELBAUMt A TACKS UPON the Supreme Court during the past half-decade have centered Aabout judicial pronouncements which, critics contend, reflect an ex- cessively narrow view of state powers. While some of these criticisms question directly the institutional role of the Court, more often they represent expressions of displeasure with respect to a single holding or a particular line of decisions interpretive of federal-state relationships. Among hostile groups, the labeling of a decision as that of the "Warren Court"1 serves to evoke an emotional response usually reserved for the forum of partisan politics. Nor are such outbursts limited to persons or organizations ordinarily unconcerned or unacquainted with the judicial process. Indeed, the leadership for such "cru- sades" against the Court has come from professional associations which, in former years, could be counted among the most outspoken defenders of a vigorously assertive judiciary. 2 What factors have called forth the most recent barrage of invective from presumably responsible state advocates and their supporters in Congress? Has the Court deliberately reentered the political thicket from which it seemed to have emerged following the contest of the 1930's? Is the Court guilty of an excessive degree of judicial activism in the determination of federal-state is- sues? Exploration of these questions requires a reappraisal of the Court's behavior in those traditional but vital areas which relate to the apportionment of powers between nation and state. The bases of conflict will be familiar to all students of the American constitutional system and its development.
    [Show full text]
  • The Burger Court, Strickland V. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel
    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 14 Issue 2 Article 3 2013 Nearing Thirty Years: The Burger Court, Strickland v. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel Joshua Kastenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Joshua Kastenberg, Nearing Thirty Years: The Burger Court, Strickland v. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel, 14 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 215 (2013). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol14/iss2/3 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS ARTICLE NEARING THIRTY YEARS: THE BURGER COURT, STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, AND THE PARAMETERS OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL* Joshua Kastenberg** I. INTRODUCTION The right to a fair criminal trial-including the right to be represented by counsel'-is a cornerstone of American democracy. As the Supreme Court held in Gideon v. *This article relies in part on research conducted by the author in the papers of various judges. With the exception of the Bazelon papers, which are housed at the Biddle Law Library at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, all collections cited in this article are available in the Library of Congress's Manuscripts Division. The notations for the collections are as follows: Justice William J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court Database Codebook
    The Supreme Court Database Codebook Supreme Court Database Code Book brick_2020_01 CONTRIBUTORS Harold Spaeth Michigan State University College of Law Lee Epstein Washington University in Saint Louis Ted Ruger University of Pennsylvania School of Law Sarah C. Benesh University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Department of Political Science Jeffrey Segal Stony Brook University Department of Political Science Andrew D. Martin University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts Document Crafted On September 21, 2020 @ 01:42 1 of 128 The Supreme Court Database Codebook Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY 1 Introduction 2 Citing to the SCDB IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES 3 SCDB Case ID 4 SCDB Docket ID 5 SCDB Issues ID 6 SCDB Vote ID 7 U.S. Reporter Citation 8 Supreme Court Citation 9 Lawyers Edition Citation 10 LEXIS Citation 11 Docket Number BACKGROUND VARIABLES 12 Case Name 13 Petitioner 14 Petitioner State 15 Respondent 16 Respondent State 17 Manner in which the Court takes Jurisdiction 18 Administrative Action Preceeding Litigation 19 Administrative Action Preceeding Litigation State 20 Three-Judge District Court 21 Origin of Case 22 Origin of Case State 23 Source of Case 24 Source of Case State 2 of 128 The Supreme Court Database Codebook 25 Lower Court Disagreement 26 Reason for Granting Cert 27 Lower Court Disposition 28 Lower Court Disposition Direction CHRONOLOGICAL VARIABLES 29 Date of Decision 30 Term of Court 31 Natural Court 32 Chief Justice 33 Date of Oral Argument 34 Date of Reargument SUBSTANTIVE VARIABLES 35 Issue 36 Issue Area
    [Show full text]
  • Come Back to the Nickel and Five:* Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law Jim Chen
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 59 | Issue 4 Article 7 Fall 9-1-2002 Come Back to the Nickel and Five:* Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law Jim Chen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Jim Chen, Come Back to the Nickel and Five:* Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law, 59 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1203 (2002), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol59/ iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Come Back to the Nickel and Five:* Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law Jim Chen** Table of Contents I. The Korematsu Conundrum ......................... 1204 II. The Nickel and Five ............................... 1212 A. The "Nickel": Fifth Amendment Due Process and "Reverse Incorporation" ...................... 1215 B. The "Five": Civil Rights Enforcement Under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment ........... 1228 C. Main Street U.S.A .............................. 1244 III. The Nixonburger Interregnum ........................ 1248 A. Nixon as Nemesis ........ ................. 1249 B. The Nickel and Five Survives ..................... 1251 C. Affirmative Action as Armageddon ................. 1264 IV. The Grand Rehnquisition ............................ 1280 V. The Fall of the House of Warren ...................... 1294 * It is somewhat deflating to explain the cultural allusion that inspired the title of one's law review article, but editing conventions dictate a word or two of clarification.
    [Show full text]